Varistor across two SCRs

We are using an SCR switch to apply a voltage to a high current transformer for circuit breaker testing. The two SCRs are connected antiparallel, and the gates are turned on at about 70 degrees phase angle, and then left on until the desired length AC pulse has occurred, or the breaker on the output trips and stops current flow.

The applied voltage is selected from transformer taps from 0 to 600 VAC. Sometimes when switching higher taps, the SCRs self-initiate, causing a very high output current that trips the breaker instantly, but unexpectedly. We were able to reduce this effect with a 30 uF cap and 1 ohm snubber across the tap switch, but the problem still occurred. The manufacturer had mounted a 575 VRMS MOV varistor across the SCRs, which are rated 1800 V. When we disconnected the MOV, the problem disappeared.

My question is to determine if there could be a danger to the SCRs. I have found an MOV rated 1800 V, so that might provide some protection. The maximum peak voltage that should be imposed on the SCRs is about 850 volts, and the MOV supplied breaks down at 850 to 900 volts. The snubber across the SCRs is 0.033 uF and 50 ohms. The capacitance of the MOV is probably about 0.1 uF.

I think the initial surge through the MOV is magnetizing the transformer, and then there may be inductive spikes during the contact bouncing of the switch. I think these spikes caused the MOV to conduct, resulting in a partial cycle of current. Without the MOV, the SCRs probably do not see a spike high enough to cause them to trigger on. My understanding of SCRs is that a voltage above their breakdown voltage will cause spurious triggering, and possible degradation of blocking voltage.

My other concern is about voltage spikes that may occur when the circuit breaker on the output opens up. I would expect an inductive kick, which will initially cause arcing on the breaker contacts, dissipating most of the stored energy. Since the SCRs are still turned on, I think any other inductive energy will be dissipated in the snubber on the tap switch, and the wiring of the primary circuit.

We are still having some problems when the firing circuit board is connected to the SCRs, however. I will be looking into that Monday. I think the current in the tap switch snubber is being picked up by the board, and somehow turning on the gates. The board is mounted on the SCR heat sink, so maybe it needs to be moved away or put into a shielded enclosure.

Thanks for any ideas or thoughts.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen
Loading thread data ...

"Paul E. Schoen"

** Why not post this on " alt.engineering.electrical" ??

Thousands of volts and amps at the same time scares hell out of most electronics types.

....... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

It's excessive dV/dt that's more likely to cause unintended SCR turn-on, rather than high voltages. I suggest you get out a scope with a 1500-volt probe to see what's really happening.

Reply to
Winfield

There should be no current flowing when you change taps, so your snubber shouldnt be doing anything usefull. You can remove it once you find the real problem.

The

575V mov accross 600V supply, should be obvious. Are you sure the scr is conducting? If that were the case why would removing the mov cure it?

When we disconnected the MOV, the problem disappeared.

Very likely, consider what happens to the secondary current when your breaker trips. You need to provide an alternative path for it or you will get a high voltage pulse reflected back through the transformer to your scrs.

I have

I would suggest you increase the snubber to 0.47uF, Your mov is unlikely to have any capacitance worth speaking of.

There shouldnt be an initial surge through the mov. The rest of this statement doesn't make any sence either.

Without the MOV, the SCRs probably do not see a

You hope your scrs are still turned on, it depends how your fireing them and how lucky you are.

I think any other

I thought you said that snubber was accross the switch, ie shorted out by the contacts.

and

I expect this is where most of your problems lie maybe you could post the circuit.

however. I will be looking into that Monday. I think

What your doing is fairly straight forward, there are no real "gottchas" apart fron not saturating your output tramsformer. Phase control on the scrs is a much better way to control the output current, a whole lot cheaper than a tapped transformer to.

Reply to
cbarn24050

SCRs will trigger on excess voltage and some value of dv/dt (via capacitive coupling to the gate). As the applied voltage rises, the tolerated dv/dt goes down.

I can't speculate on the effect the MOVs are having unless I see the whole circuit. Are both the snubbers and MOVs connected cathode to anode? Is there any other snubber across the tap switch or transformer windings?

I agree that most of the stored inductive energy will be dumped into the arc, not the SCRs, but, again, the whole schematic would be helpful.

Gate loading also has a big effect on the dv/dt rating of many SCRs. So, exactly what the gate driver connects to the gates and how the wiring intercepts stray fields can get involved.

If the driver is very sensitive, perhaps. But adding length to the gate lead is also problematic, and is probably the reason it is so close.

Reply to
John Popelish

[...]

Sounds like classic dv/dt single cycle switch through. I'd suggest putting a string of 10k resistors across all the transformer tapping points. The idea is that whatever the tapping switch is wont to do, the thyristor is always 'pre warned'of the source sine wave shape, hence never sees excessive edges.

Reply to
john jardine
[...]

Belay the previous. I can't see your switching arrangements allowing it.

Reply to
john jardine

Bouncing a HV with inductive source impedance through a mechanical switch onto dv/dt sensitive components, what do you expect. Unless you have some kind of overarching throughput requirements, it seems that the tap switching should be sequenced, power down the primary, make the switch, then synchronously reapply primary power.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

(This reply also relates to other posts. Thanks to all for responding)

Please see schematic:

formatting link

This is a retrofit of a test set that was originally designed and built using a contactor. We replace the contactor with an SCR to provide better control of initial phase angle to reduce DC offset which can greatly affect instantaneous trip time.

There is no way to power down the tapped autotransformer because it also supplies control power, as well as allowing a range of input voltages

208/240/480/575. These units are often quite old, dating to the 1970s, and the tap switches may be in questionable condition, so they may have quite a bit of contact bounce.

One idea I had was to keep the contactor in series with the SCR, and connect the coil to the NC push-to-turn interlock switch on the tap switch, so the SCR would only have voltage applied to it after the tap change. But it is still possible for the voltage to be applied at the peak, and the contactor might have contact bounce as well.

Another idea was to put a contactor on the variable transformer T4A&B, so that the inductance of the boost transformer T2 would limit the dV/dt to the SCR when the tap is changed. But that involves a lot of extra wiring.

This is an unusual situation. Most SCRs have power applied to them only when the system is first powered up, and then all control is done by means of gating. Also, the load is usually something like a motor or heaters or other devices which do not react to a brief 1/2 cycle conduction due to dV/dt. In this case, a half cycle of conduction at maximum output setting applies a current of 20,000 to 50,000 amperes to a circuit breaker, and will probably cause it to trip if it is a "small" breaker of 1600 amps or less.

It is not possible to use phase-modulated control for output current adjustment because the circuit breaker must be tested with a sine wave current similar to a fault current in normal use. The precise control of initial phase angle helps to eliminate DC offset that can cause the first

1/2 cycle to be as much as twice the usual peak voltage (this happens if zero-crossing initiation is used on an inductive load).

We have determined that removing the MOV takes care of the problem when the gates are removed from the firing board. There is still a small snubber across the SCRs. It needs to be smaller than usual because the leakage can cause a very large output current before the SCRs are turned on. If the variable transformer is adjusted to 5% of maximum, the overall ratio of the primary to the secondary circuit is almost 1000/1, so a snubber current of

100 mA will produce an output of 100 amperes. The 0.033 uF snubber allows only 7 mA, which can be over 7 amps output. A more typical snubber of 0.47 uF allows 100 amperes or more. The varistor capacitance is probably no more than 1000 pF, so it should not contribute much to the output current.

There are some test sets by other manufacturers, that have the gate wires running in a long shielded cable to the firing circuit. I think this is a dangerous condition, as the only protection is provided by the mains breaker of 350 amps at 480 VAC, and the gate wires are at least 18 AWG. In our retrofits, as well as our new production units, we mount the SCR board on the heat sink of the dual hockey puk SCRs. The heat sink is electrically connected to the main power, which may be fixed 480 VAC, or a variable source as in the retrofits where we have problems.

There is obviously something more happening if having the firing PCB connected still causes problems. It might be through the control wiring, or possibly capacitively coupled from the changing potential of the heat sink to sensitive circuitry on the PCB. I'll learn more Monday.

Thanks for all your thoughtful replies. I hope the schematic and this further explanation might provide what is needed for better analysis.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

driving the gates from a stiffer source and placing a large Gate-Cathode cap helps too.

actually snubbing the SCRs would probably also help; according to the schematic:

formatting link

the R-C snubber connects across the series combination of the SCRs *and* the primary winding of T3. it should be across the SCRs.

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

You only speak for yourself, 'Toaster Boy'

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Not shown on the schematic is a snubber on the SCR trigger PCB. It consists of a 0.033 uF 2000 V capacitor and a 50 ohm power resistor.

The gate drive is a current regulated source fixed at about 250 mADC. There are 0.005 uF capacitors across each gate to cathode. The SCRs have built-in resistors in parallel with the G-K junction, so they read anywhere from 15 to 35 ohms. I was surprised to find such wide variation, even on new SCR packages, but some of them are more consistent.

I'll post more about my findings after I do tests Monday.

Thanks,

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

(snip)

How are these snubbers connected to the SCRs?

Reply to
John Popelish

They are in series, with one end to one cathode and the other end to the other cathode. On the old style trigger board, separate wires were used. On the new board, the cathode connections to the gate wires are used. The new board seems to work better than the old one.

It is possible that the current surge through the snubber could cause a small voltage on the gate by virtue of voltage drop through the wire, but I don't think it would be enough to cause triggering with gate wires of no more than 12", and about 18 AWG. The snubber resistor of 50 ohms limits the surge current to about 20 amps, so the wire would produce only about 0.12 V at 0.006 ohms/ft. This might be a factor if the board is moved further from the SCRs, in which case we would use a separately wired snubber. We may do that anyway.

Thanks for the idea.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

that sounds a bit scary.

work out the inductance, then see whether or not you think it can turn the SCRs on. I would have a snubber per SCR, mounted with as low an inductance method as possible. And I would ensure that the snubber R's were low inductance (eg carbon composition)

The snubber resistor of 50 ohms limits the

and if its 20nH/inch x 12" ~ 250nH, and the 20A snubber current ramps up in say 100ns, then V = LdI/dt = 250nH*20A/100ns = 50V. these numbers are of course all imaginary, but you ought to check. sharing gate and snubber current on a single wire is a bad idea.

This might be a factor if the board is moved further from

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

Ive been using some little 40TPS12 SCRs, which are about 40R G-K, and I have a 100nF shunt cap as close to the gate as I can get it (and a gate driver that can still turn it on PDQ)

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

Of course they are, reactance is all fake numbers! ;-)

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @

formatting link

Reply to
Tim Williams

Normally, one connects snubbers across the SCRs, because those are the components you are trying to protect from the dv/dt at zero current turn off, that does not produce zero voltage after turn off, because of an inductive load.

But in this case, as you say, any snubber current through such a snubber produces a multiplied current at the secondary of the output transformer.

You might model this system as 3 blocks. An input block that consists of a switched source that includes inductive energy storage, an SCR switch, and an output block that also includes inductive energy storage.

The input block is already snubbed by a large RC pair (1 ohm in series with 30 uF), the SCRs are snubbed by the pair on the driver board (which I think is a very iffy way to do that) in addition to having a capacitive MOV across it, but the output transformer is not snubbed at all.

I suspect that the capacitance of the MOV is ringing with the leakage inductance of the output transformer, jacking up the voltage steps caused by input voltage switching.

I think I would experiment with opening the snubber on the driver board (to lower the off state output current), and adding a more significant snubber (say, 3 times the capacitance) across the output transformer.

The RC values on the input side may not be optimal, either. I suspect the resistance was lowered in an attempt to try to solve this false firing problem, and that it is lower than optimum for damping the voltage ringing when the voltage is stepped, with no other load. The capacitor may also be larger than optimum. Since the turn off occurs when the load breaker trips, there is really no need to do much of anything to protect the SCRs at that time. The MOV is more important to protect the driver board from excess voltage than to protect the SCRs.

Reply to
John Popelish

We did extensive testing today and here are the results (so far):

  1. The capacitor of the snubber across the switch sometimes charged up to a peak value of 800 volts when the tap switch opened, and when it closed on the next tap voltage, if it was at a peak of opposite phase, there could be as much as 1600 volts imposed on the SCR. The problem seemed less when the snubber was disconnected, but we might use one with a smaller capacitor (about 1 uF), and a bleeder resistor to reduce the voltage to near zero between taps.

  1. The snubber on the board (0.033 uF + 50 ohms) did not seem to cause much problem with output leakage, so we can use a more effective snubber of about 0.47 uF and 20 ohms. The leakage current problem is only evident in a different test set design.

  2. The raw 12 VDC power supplies for the gates were bypassed only with 1000 uF capacitors, and we saw some high voltage spikes when there was an applied voltage transient. Adding a 1 uF ceramic bypass capacitor greatly reduced the spike, although it actually seemed to make the circuit more prone to false triggering. Of course, now the circuit could provide a much more solid high speed pulse.

  1. There were occasional gate trigger spikes of several uSec, which apparently were enough to trigger the gate, The PNP series pass transistors which turn on the gate current were driven at the base through an optoisolator. There was no bypassing, and no resistor from B-E. A 0.1 uF capacitor from B-C greatly reduced the output gate spike. I will also add an appropriate B-E resistor which should reduce the turn-on threshold.

These circuit changes have reduced the problem to a very rare occurrance. The MOV was the main cuplprit originally, and the high voltage caused by the snubber explained why it sometimes conducted so strongly (and, in one case previously, exploded). The proposed 1800 V MOV will probably be an inexpensive precaution.

Many thanks for the ideas. I think we have a good handle on the situation now. By the way, we used a TEK THS730A digital storage scope, which has two isolated input channels, and some very powerful features. The measurements we made, on 480 VAC mains power, would have been impossible with an ordinary DSO. These scopes list for about $4000, can be found on eBay for about $1500, and we got ours for about half that because of cosmetic blemishes. I have used Fluke Scopemeters before, and did not like them much, but this scope is great.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.